If there is one thing that differentiates the Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster from previous ones — aside from its magnitude — it’s the fact it is being played out for all to see in cyberspace.
Perhaps most stark has been the live video stream of the very source of the leak, the unrestrained, billowing flow of crude from the dark depths of the seabed 1,500 metres below sea level, as a backdrop to the nightly news and onto our computer screens around the clock. Such an intimate view of relentlessly growing calamity, and the sense of helplessness one feels at being unable to do anything to stop it, would have been unthinkable in the era of the Exxon Valdez spill of 1979.
A flood of websites dedicated to the spill have also quickly sprouted, providing Internet viewers an endless stream of captivating still and video images that instill both awe in their portrayal of the magnitude of the catastrophe and repulsion at the devastation left in its wake.
But one other aspect of the Internet portrayal might be particularly familiar to readers of New Technology Magazine — that of the concept of global brainstorming. It’s an issue we covered in April 2009, when we profiled, among others, InnoCentive, Inc., one of the earliest pioneers of the concept.
The InnoCentive concept is to post challenges on its website for a global audience of experts and neophytes alike — some 200,000 scientists, inventors, engineers, entrepreneurs and others in over 200 countries — to attempt to solve the challenges with the offer of a cash reward.
InnoCentive jumped on the spill early, putting out a challenge to its massive audience April 30 and, breaking with tradition, seeking solutions as “a public service” without cash reward. With the magnitude of the spill, the pro bono approach didn’t slow down the flood of responses.
“Our connected planet needs to take a fresh approach to disaster response,” InnoCentive CEO Dwayne Spradlin said. “It only takes one amazing idea to slow the Gulf oil leak or minimize its impact.”
With each failed attempt by BP to stem the well’s flow, and with mounting pressure for the company to accept outside help or intervention, some argue its taking of suggestions has been more PR than sincere acceptance. InnoCentive, for example, has said BP has ignored its attempts to provide positive input. Others say the company has done little to provide the kind of details of the leak — such as pressures, temperatures and flow rates being experienced at depth — that could assist solvers in formulating detailed response plans.
The task, of course, is not an easy one for the super majors to deal with. Sorting out the good leads from the instant-profit-seeking charlatans and those whose sincere proposals are already tried, too costly or simply not feasible must be a monumental task in itself when literally thousands of ideas appear in the suggestion box.
But surely, given BP’s sorry record to date and the magnitude of the spill it caused, it could at least reach out to those making an honest effort to prevent more damage. Crowdsourcing has been shown to work in the oil and gas sector and many other industries. In fact, one success story from InnoCentive involved an outsider finding a solution to a problematic part of the Exxon Valdez cleanup in 2007 after years of industry effort came up short.
Many of the “solvers” are within the industry itself and know it well. One innovator NTM featured last year, Darrell Kosakewich — Triple D Technologies president and inventor of a method of fracing wells by freezing water in the wellbore, using the expansion property of ice to force open fractures — is among those who submitted his own solution to BP’s spill. “We suggested to freeze the riser off,” he told me last week. The solution would use the natural formation of gas hydrates at depth — something that scuttled BP attempts to cap the leak with a massive containment vessel — to advantage, he said. “Gas hydrates are your friend.”
To date, Kosakewich has gone back and forth a few times with BP and the U.S. Coast Guard further refining the concept.
A good first step by BP would be to fully open its books and provide all details it has of conditions at the wellhead, equipment used and its state of damage, and all other potentially pertinent information that could possibly assist solvers, and make an honest attempt to work with those whose ideas are determined to be potentially feasible. Given that BP’s disaster has become a public disaster, impacting thousands of people’s livelihoods and costing governments billions in cleanup costs and lost revenues — and still with no immediate solution at hand — it can hardly afford not to.
